Has Facebook Become a (Gay) Prude?


We’ve all seen some of the pictures that get posted on Facebook all of the time.. very buxom girls with barely any clothing on, plastered over some car or bent over some piece of furniture.IMG_1852

And as we’ve seen, these pictures are apparently perfectly fine and allowed on Facebook since they never seem to be reported for indecency or removed.  And you never hear of the people posting those pictures being barred or penalised for showing those pictures.

But change the buxom lady for a fit muscular man, and whoa momma!!  That’s a whole other kettle of fish.. and gawd forbid you potentially make a man look sexual in a gay way, even when solo in a picture and not showing any naughty bits.

That’s right, when that happens, Facebook tends to remove the ‘offending’ picture and sometimes bars the owner/poster of the picture until they’ve ‘investigated’ whether it is in violation of their Community Standards.  Or whatever it is they are checking them against.

So there definitely seems to be some kind of double standard when it comes to male and female sexuality being displayed on Facebook.

Back over the holidays, I became aware of Michael Stokes Photography (Click here for his Facebook Page) and a bit of controversy over one of his pictures, posted below.  In fact, this picture was reported to Facebook as containing ‘nudity or pornography’.


That’s right.. someone took the time to ‘report’ this picture of a very sexy man dressed up like a priest.  Other than baring his chest, there’s no nudity and most definitely has no hints of pornography (though find me a gay man who hasn’t had a priest fantasy.. or two haha).

Click here for his Facebook Page

What happened next was absolutely ridiculous, as far as I’m concerned – Michael Stokes posted the notification they’d received about the picture on Facebook and then was banned for 30 days from the website.  His posting of the notification was removed, but surprisingly the picture itself wasn’t.

But it also seems to have had something to do with this picture:

Michael Stokes Photo1

Once again, another absolutely gorgeous picture of a super-fit man who just happens to only be wearing a helmet and what looks like an athletic support cup covering his genitals.  It’s definitely a sexy picture and could be considered slightly pornographic (personally I say somewhat erotic..), but is it even remotely offensive?

After awhile, Mr Stoke’s access was reinstated and he continued to post his photography on his page to the delight of his followers… Until the other day when he received another notification from Facebook, only this one stated they’d removed a picture from his page:

Michael Stokes Photo2

Other than showing a bit of upper buttocks, there is no actual nudity and nothing really pornographic about this picture, so why was it removed by Facebook?  And how could this be against their Community Standards?

Quite obviously someone who finds this type of photography offensive and inappropriate to view has taken the time to become a fan of this man’s Facebook page, and then is making it their mission to harass Mr Stokes by reporting his beautiful photographs.  Personally I think those sort of people should get a life and if these great pictures are not their cup of tea, then don’t look at them.


Click HERE to visit the photographer’s website

After a lot of looking on Facebook, I eventually found the Community Standards section by doing a physical search for it.. They’re not exactly something you can find just by clicking something on the top or bottom of the page.  Here is what they put in regards to Nudity and Pornography:

Michael Stokes Photo3Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo’s David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.

But the question must be, who at Facebook decides what is considered part of these standards and what isn’t?  Are these based on someone’s personal beliefs or tastes?  And why aren’t these same standards being applied to the pictures of those buxom women with their tits and asses hanging out?

And why should one person (or committee of people) get to chose what we can or cannot see in our own Facebook feeds?

Or even sometimes in the personal messages we’ve received.. Back just before Christmas, my old flatmate from Montreal sent out his usual Christmas cheer message to people on his friends list through Facebook messenger.  It was a lovely message as usual… but because he sent it to a large mass of people all at once, he was flagged for sending SPAM.

Yeah.. apparently now wishing your friends Merry Christmas is now considered against their Community Standards … Maybe he should have said ‘Happy Holidays’ instead.  😉

Reporting Facebook

Tell me what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.